Posted on behalf of Andalusian (the BBCode refused to co-operate with her attempt): Jail Food Row Sparks Legal Move Do convicted child sex offenders deserve to be treated as well as possible? Or have they lost that privilege? Jail conditions can be used a deterrent. This is a good example. Or should we not base our system of punishment on that superficial a deterrent? If we aim for rehabilitation, shouldn't we establish a comfortable environment wherein we can inspire real change in the prisoner's attitude? Discuss.
I don't know enough about Australian law, but they cannot be used that way in the US because they violate the Constitutional prescription against cruel and unusual punishment. (The fact that people in certain parts of the US get away with violating the Constitution is something else.) Also, treating someone differently as a result of their religious beliefs is not the same as creating uncomfortable conditions. Once again, I don't know anything about Australian laws on religious discrimination. By the way, what is "indecent dealing"? edit: Also, prison staff do not have the right to determine how convicted criminals should be punished. That is what judges are for.
Actually, that bit was referring to an American county jail's strategy. As explained in the linked article. Whether it's cruel and unusual punishment or not is personal opinion. Well, is being unable to get expensive and difficult to prepare (can't use the same utensils as used for normal meat) fresh Halal meat for a prisoner really religious discrimination? He was given Halal meat, he complained about the fact that he got a few more vegetarian meals than other prisoners, and that the meat was not to his taste. Should he have won his case, or should prisoners put up with existing jail conditions?
Cruel and unusual punishment doesn't enter into it. You can't deny that a discussion about the conditions in a prison is possible. Even the decision of whether or not to put in a TV has to deal with those considerations. Perhaps the pink prison was not a good example*, but it should be abundantly clear that establishing what basic living conditions every human being has a right to is difficult and that the question of whether or not those are the conditions prisoners should be subjected to is also open to debate. *Although I personally think it illustrates that a deterrent need not be cruel and unusual rather well.
A discussion on whether conditions in a prison are acceptable would be based on whether the conditions violate the prisoner's rights as a human being, which is what cruel and unusual punishment is about. Re religious discrimination: If everyone in the prison had to eat crappy food from a tin, then it would not be a problem; institutional food is supposed to be crap. But the fact is that if he had been Christian and sentenced to prison for exactly the same crime, he would have got to eat the good food. It's the difference between having to stand at the back of the bus because the bus is crowded and having to stand at the back of the bus because you're black. edit: I was assuming that Christians in the prison did not eat fatty, salty tinned food; the article doesn't say. edit 2: If there is a logistical problem with providing separate food for a minority of Muslim prisoners, the logical solution would be to serve halal food to Christians as well.
Apart from the fact that Halal meat is ridiculously expensive and hard to find. Plus, Muslim and Christian aren't the only two religions on the planet.
There are elements of living conditions that have no real bearing on human rights. You can discuss these. An example is the TV. Another example would be the amount of space (beyond the bare minimum to survive). Prison conditions are not just the basic conditions any human has a right to.
cruel and unusual punishment is one issue. what rights a convicted felon is allowed to retain is another issue, but related to the above. whether our penal institutions are to serve as rehabilitation or punative/preventative measures is, however, the most significant issue that impacts both of the above. And, for most people, world over, it's pretty simply 'punative/preventative' and be done with it.
I thought the pink prison was a really interesting idea, especially since it's been so effective. I do think the core of any debate about prisoners' rights is whether the purpose of prison is to punish or to rehabilitate. I think whichever is your assumption will inform all your decisions. For example, you probably wouldn't include a TV in a jail cell if you wanted to punish prisoners and give them a tough time inside; but you might include one if you wanted to keep them mentally and emotionally stable and open to new ideas. I believe that humans are not born good or evil, but that a criminal has reached that place in life through their choices and the things that have happened to them - and, indeed, not happened to them. I don't think morality is strictly a question of nurture over nature, but I think nurture is a good 90%, if you want to bring it down to simple terms. It is this belief that tends to inform the rehabiliation school versus punishment. However, I don't know that it is always possible to rehabilitate someone fully into normal society. Even if it was someone's circumstances that brought them to where they are, can you undo what those circumstances have made of them? Then again, believing it is impossible to rehabilitate someone does not logically lead to believing punishment should be desired instead. Is it necessarily that person's fault they can't be rehabilitated? I do believe that rehabilitation should be attempted where possible; surely it's more useful to society to fix broken people and make them useful again than to keep supporting more and more liabilities. Where impossible, if it's not that person's fault, isn't it still appropriate for them to be kept in living conditions that meet their human rights? I suppose the issue there is in deciding whether or not someone can be rehabilitated and whether or not it's their fault! So... getting to the main point: I think prisoners should have their human 'rights' met. But I think if that happens, it is a compassionate choice on behalf of society rather than anything the prisoners deserve. A law-breaker has chosen to opt out of the social contract and must therefore accept all the consequences of that choice. So I don't think a prisoner has any right to expect to be able to practise his religion or to be given the right food, let alone nice food; but I do think we make a choice about the kind of people and society we have in the way we choose to treat prisoners. I'm sorry if this is all a bit incoherent. I'm thinking through the ideas as I write, and I'm about to rush off to eat!
Sheriff Joe Arpaio routinely feeds his inmates practically nothing but green colored bologna sandwiches, They can bitch but so far he's been allowed to do this. When he first got into this tent business I think he was trying to shame the county into building more jailspace but I think it has proven to actually do some good, these people are uncomfortable and they have to put up with boring food and pink underwear but they also have time to think about what they will do to stay out of sheriff joe's custody and if that isn't rehabilitating I don't know what is. Our county just opened a new jailbuilding last spring. They built it in two parts so they would have room to expand when they needed, hopefully a few years down the road. They have already reached full capacity in the first "pod" and have been getting so many requests to house prisoners from nearby counties they are going to open the second "pod". This is mostly because of the meth epidemic. They have put the medications with psuedoephedrine behind the counter and that cut down on the DIY labs, but it is now being shipped in from Mexico. They haven't got rid of the drug but the toxic waste sites aren't popping up everwhere. I don't know if methaddicts would care about pink underwear or green meat, though.
Arpaio was taking some flack for having the inmates live in tents in those extreme temperatures and asked the ones accusing him of mistreatment to check on the living conditions of the soldiers in Iraq. Turned out that the soldiers' living quarters were close, if not worse, than the inmate's. I don't think he mistreats his prisoners, but he doesn't treat them nicely either.
